Does Nipple-Ward Positive Margin Contribute to a Higher Rate of Re-Excision Procedures After a Lumpectomy with Pathology-Confirmed Positive Margins? A Retrospective Study

Background

Positive margins on lumpectomy specimens are associated with a twofold increased risk of local breast tumor recurrence. Prior literature has demonstrated various techniques and modalities for assessing margin status to reduce re-excision rates. However, there is paucity of literature analyzing which margin contributes to the highest re-excision rates. Therefore, the primary aim of the study was to investigate whether the nipple-ward margins resulted in a higher rate of re-excision in our patient population.

Methods

 A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who had re-excision surgery. Nipple-ward margin was identified by correlating radiological and pathological reports. A cut-off of more than 25% was used to demonstrate correlation between nipple-ward margin and re-excision rate.

Results

A total of 98 patients' data were analyzed, with 41 (41.8%), 14 (14.3%), 5 (5.1%), and 38 (38.8%) diagnosed with DCIS, IDC, ILC, and mixed pathology on their margins, respectively. Overall, 48% (n=47) of the positive margins were nipple-ward, with 44.7% (n=21) reporting DCIS. Upon stratification, 45 (45.9%) cases were single-margin positive, with 26 (57.8%) being nipple-ward. Furthermore, the remaining 53 (54.1%) patients had multiple positive margins, with 21 (39.6.7%) nipple-ward cases.

Conclusion

Positive nipple-ward margins significantly contribute to a higher re-excision rate p < 0.001; 48% of re-excision surgeries had positive nipple-ward margins, and 57.8% of positive single-margin cases were nipple-ward. Taking an additional shave during initial lumpectomy decreases re-excision rates. However, planning a lumpectomy procedure with a more elliptical rather than a spherical resection with additional cavity shave (ie, larger volume) in the nipple-ward direction and minimizing the remaining cavity shaves so the total volume resected remains unchanged. Nevertheless, future studies with larger sample sizes are required to bolster our findings.

Impact of SSO-ASTRO Margin Guidelines on Re-excision Rate in Breast-conserving Surgery: A Single-center Experience

Introduction

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) has been historically linked with a high rate of re-excision. To address this issue, the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) developed consensus guidelines in 2014 to standardize practices and improve clinical outcomes for BCS patients. In our tertiary cancer care hospital, we assessed the impact of these guidelines on the re-excision rate following BCS.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study on breast cancer patients who underwent BCS at the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre in Lahore, Pakistan. The study compared the re-excision rate before the implementation of the SSO-ASTRO consensus guidelines (November 2015-July 2017) and after the implementation (January 2018-August 2019). Margins were considered positive if "ink on tumor" was present and negative if "no ink on tumor" was present. Fisher's exact test or Chi-square test was used to compare the re-excision rates between the pre- and post-guideline periods.

Results

A total of 919 patients were identified, with 533 from the pre-guideline period and 386 from the post-guideline period. Of the 919 patients, 31 with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were excluded from the re-excision analysis because the guidelines were not implemented on the DCIS. Furthermore, the overall rate of re-excision in our data was 4.3%. The re-excision rate decreased from 71.1% to 28.9% (P ≤ 0.05) following the adoption of the guidelines. We observed a statistically significant decrease in the re-excision rate after implementing the SSO-ASTRO guidelines.

Conclusion

Implementation of the SSO-ASTRO margin guidelines led to a notable decrease in the overall re-excision rate in our data set. These findings suggest that continued adherence to the guidelines may lead to a further reduction in the re-excision rate in the future.

Optimal timing of re-excision in synovial sarcoma patients: Immediate intervention versus waiting for local recurrence

BACKGROUND

To investigate the difference in efficacy of re-excision in synovial sarcoma patients with and without residual tumor following unplanned excision, and to compare the prognostic outcomes of immediate re-excision versus waiting for local recurrence.

METHOD

This study included synovial sarcoma patients who underwent re-excision at our center between 2009 and 2019, categorized into groups based on unplanned excision and local recurrence. Analyzed endpoints included overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS). Prognostic factors associated with these three different survival outcomes were analyzed through the use of Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression approaches.

RESULT

In total, this study incorporated 109 synovial sarcoma patients, including 32 (29.4%) with no residual tumor tissue identified after re-excision, 31 (28.4%) with residual tumor tissue after re-excision, and 46 (42.2%) with local recurrence after initial excision. Patients were assessed over a median 52-month follow-up period. The respective 5-year OS, 5-year LRFS, and 5-year DRFS rates were 82.4%, 76.7%, and 74.2% for the nonresidual group, 80.6%, 80.4%, and 77.3% for the residual tumor tissue group, and 63.5%, 50.7%, and 46.3% for the local recurrence group. There was no significant difference in OS of nonresidual group and residual group patients after re-excision (p = 0.471). Concurrent or sequential treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy significantly reduced the risk of metastasis and mortality when compared with noncombined chemoradiotherapy, and was more effective in the local recurrence group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Prompt and adequate re-excision is crucial for patients with synovial sarcoma who undergo initial inadequate tumor excision, and their prognosis is significantly better compared with patients who delay re-excision until local recurrence.

Comparison of Wire and Non-Wire Localisation Techniques in Breast Cancer Surgery: A Review of the Literature with Pooled Analysis

Background and Objectives: Wide local excision is a common procedure in the treatment of breast cancer. Wire-guided localisation (WGL) has been the gold standard for many years; however, several issues have been identified with this technique, and therefore, wire-free techniques have been developed. This scoping review synthesises the available literature comparing wire-guided localisation with the wire-free techniques used in breast-conserving cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: Multiple databases including Pubmed and MEDLINE were used to search articles between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2022. Terms included "breast neoplasms", "margins of excision", and "reoperation". In total, 34/256 papers were selected for review. Comparisons were made between positive margins and re-excision rates of WGL with wire-free techniques including SAVI SCOUT, Magseed, ROLL, and RSL. Pooled p-values were calculated using chi-square testing to determine statistical significance. Results: Pooled analysis demonstrated statistically significant reductions in positive margins and re-excision rates when SAVI SCOUT, RSL, and ROLL were compared with WGL. When SAVI SCOUT was compared to WGL, there were fewer re-excisions {(8.6% vs. 18.8%; p = 0.0001) and positive margins (10.6% vs. 15.0%; p = 0.0105)}, respectively. This was also the case in the ROLL and RSL groups. When compared to WGL; lower re-excision rates and positive margins were noted {(12.6% vs. 20.8%; p = 0.0007), (17.0% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.0268)} for ROLL and for RSL, respectively {(6.8% vs. 14.9%),(12.36% vs. 21.4%) (p = 0.0001)}. Magseed localisation demonstrated lower rates of re-excision than WGL (13.44% vs. 15.42%; p = 0.0534), but the results were not statistically significant. Conclusions: SAVI SCOUT, Magseed, ROLL, and RSL techniques were reviewed. Pooled analysis indicates wire-free techniques, specifically SAVI SCOUT, ROLL, and RSL, provide statistically significant reductions in re-excision rates and positive margin rates compared to WGL. However, additional studies and systematic analysis are required to ascertain superiority between techniques.

Efficacy and Safety of Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Re-excised Soft-tissue Sarcoma After Unplanned Resection

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) re-excised after unplanned tumor resection (UPR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2000 to 2015, we retrospectively evaluated patients with STS of limb or trunk who underwent post-UPR re-excision in our expert center and received or not aRT.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 121 months (IQR 94-165). Among the 145 patients, 37 were not treated with aRT (no-RT) and 108 received aRT with a median radiation dose of 50 Gy (IQR 50-60). At 10 years, patients in the aRT and no-RT groups showed a cumulative incidence of local failure (10y-LF) of 14.7% and 37.7%, and a local recurrence-free survival (10y-LRFS) of 61.3% and 45.8%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified aRT and age ≥70 years as independent predictors of both LF and LRFS, while grade 3 and deep-seated tumor were independent predictors of LRFS. In overall population, 10-year distant metastasis-free survival (10y-DMFS) and overall survival (10y-OS) were 63.7% and 69.4%. In multivariate analyses, age ≥70 years, grade 3, and deep-seated lesion were associated with shorter DMFS and OS. Acute severe adverse events were not significantly increased in aRT group (14.8% vs. 18.1%, P = .85) but dramatically increased if radiation dose exceeded 50 Gy (risk ratio 2.96 compared to ≤50 Gy, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

In STS patients re-excised after UPR, 50 Gy aRT was safe and associated with reduced LF and longer LRFS. It seems to be beneficial even in absence of residual disease or in absence of initial adverse prognostic factors.

A Retrospective Study of Re-excised Skin Cancers in a Pathology Center

Surgical re-excision is the recommended treatment for the complete removal of incompletely excised skin cancers (SCs), but it may not always lead to this goal. In the present study, the re-excision rate and the presence of residual tumors in re-excised SCs were evaluated. In this retrospective descriptive study, the pathological archives of a hospital center were examined for incompletely excised tumors. Out of the 96 incompletely excised tumors, 19 cases (19.8%) underwent re-excision, of which residual tumors were observed again in 7 cases (36.8%). The highest rate of residual tumor was found in the cheek (66.66%), and the involvement with tumor remnants of both margins combined was greater than the involvement of each of the lateral and deep margins alone. Collecting and reporting of surgical results of re-excised tumors may assist clinicians in determining the patient's condition and making appropriate decisions to increase the success rate of reoperations.

Evaluating the impact of radiofrequency spectroscopy on reducing reoperations after breast conserving surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of breast conserving surgery for breast cancer patients are well established. To achieve adequate margins of excision, intraoperative management of breast margins is a critical factor through reducing reoperation for inadequate positive margin excision and associated morbidity and cost. Radiofrequency spectroscopy is a technology that could significantly reduce positive margins when used intraoperatively as an adjunct to other margin management methods.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was completed with 10 publications comparing use of radiofrequency spectroscopy technology (MarginProbe) with standard margin assessment procedures. Three randomized controlled studies and seven retrospective studies comparing MarginProbe to historical controls were included. The primary endpoint was reduction of re-excision rates. Statistical significance level was set at the two-sided 5% level corresponding to two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the pooled relative risk estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 2335 patients from 10 publications were included in this meta-analysis. The overall relative reduction in re-excision rate was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.38-0.64, p < 0.001). Statistical methods were used to examine publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limited randomized controlled trials available comparing radiofrequency spectroscopy to standard operation procedures, the data from the 10 studies demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in re-excision rate of 49% for MarginProbe usage, currently the only technology indicated for intraoperative identification of breast cancer tissue at the lumpectomy specimen margin.

Re-excision within a radius of 2 cm in patients with melanoma of the skin - sufficient for local oncological radicalness

INTRODUCTION

Malignant melanoma is one of the most malignant tumours in the human body. Radical re-excision of the tumour bed is a principal part of its surgical treatment. We aim to test the hypothesis that the re-excision with a 2 cm margin in all directions to the scar from the previous biopsy of the primary tumour provides sufficient local control in patients with this disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a prospective descriptive study using STROBE methods, including all 151 patients with malignant melanoma of the skin, diagnosed and treated at the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, Dr Georgi Stranski University Hospital, Medical University of Pleven, Bulgaria, in the period 2012-2016. Twenty-one cases were omitted from the study during the observation period due to lack of sufficient data. The re-excision was mainly within 2 cm margins in all directions to the scar from the previous biopsy of the primary tumour.

RESULTS

Data of all 130 patients with malignant skin melanoma, diagnosed and treated at our single large centre, were prospectively registered and analysed. These were 67 male and 63 female patients with a mean age at diagnosis of 61.6 years (range: 17-91 years). Using the re-excision within 2 cm margins, we identified only 1 (0.77%) patient with a histologically confirmed residual tumour in the re-excised flap. Local recurrence was observed in 13 (10%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-excision with a 2 cm margin is sufficient to achieve local surgical radicalness in the treatment of this disease without compromising oncological survival.

Minimizing re-excision after breast conserving surgery - a review of radiofrequency spectroscopy for real-time, intraoperative margin assessment

INTRODUCTION

For early-stage breast cancer, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) plus radiation is standard-of-care. Nationwide, >20% of BCS patients require re-excision for positive margins, resulting in delayed adjuvant therapy, increased complications, emotional and financial stress for patients, and additional cost to the healthcare system. Although several methods may be employed to mitigate positive margins, no technique can fully address the need. MarginProbe® is an adjunctive tool for real-time intraoperative margin assessment and is shown to reduce positive margins by >50%.

AREAS COVERED

Discussion of the impact of re-excision following BCS, a review of currently available methods for intraoperative margin management, followed by a technology and literature review of the MarginProbe® Radiofrequency Spectroscopy System.

EXPERT OPINION

Re-excision significantly impacts patients, providers and payers. Limitations in the ability to assess margins at time of surgery warrant more advanced methods of residual disease detection. MarginProbe facilitates the most efficient pathway for breast cancer patients through the surgical phase of treatment. The device is well-suited for adoption as the healthcare focus shifts from volume to value and supports the three pillars of the US Department of Health and Human Services' 'Triple-Aim' strategy: improve population health, improve patient experience of care, and reduce per-capita costs.

Radiological Underestimation of Tumor Size Influences the Success Rate of Re-Excision after Breast-conserving Surgery

Objective

Failure to achieve adequate margins after breast-conserving surgery often leads to re-excision, either by repeat breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or by mastectomy. Despite the high frequency of this problem, the success rate of achieving adequate margins by repeat BCS is not well documented. The objective of this study was to determine the success rate of repeat BCS and identify the factors influencing that rate.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective review was performed of all women undergoing repeat BCS for inadequate margins after initial BCS in our breast unit between 2013 and 2019. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify the factors influencing how often adequate margins were achieved after repeat BCS.

Results

One hundred fifty-four patients underwent repeat BCS after initially inadequate margins, of which adequate margins were achieved in 82%. Patients with successful repeat BCS had smaller tumors, had less underestimation of tumor size on imaging, and were less likely to have had cavity shaves taken at their initial BCS. A tumor size more than 50% larger than predicted by imaging was independently associated with failure of repeat BCS in multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 3.6, 95% CI: 1.41-9.20, p = 0.007). Underestimation of tumor size by imaging was commoner and more extensive in patients with larger tumors and those with ductal carcinoma in situ.

Conclusion

Re-excision by cavity shaves has a high success rate and should be offered to all patients who are deemed suitable for the procedure. Patients whose tumors are more than 50% larger than predicted by imaging should be counseled about the higher risk of failure.

Oncoplastic breast-conservative surgery for breast cancers: a uni-institutional case-control study

The current study was designed to compare oncological outcomes between oncoplastic (OBCS) and conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Data collected retrospectively from two groups of patients diagnosed with breast cancer, cases group (OBCS) and control group (BCS), were analyzed. A total of 277 women were included in the analysis: 193 (69.7%) in the cases group and 84 (30.3%) in the control group. Resected volume was larger in the OBCS group (438.05 ± 302.26 cm³ vs 223.34 ± 161.75 cm³; p < 0.001). Re-excision was required for 7.1% of patients receiving BCS versus 4.7% in the OBCS group (p = 0.402). After long-term follow up, no local recurrences occurred in the OBCS group, while 2.4% of patients receiving BCS had local relapse (p = 0.045). Compared with BCS, OBCS increases oncological safety in terms of re-excision rate and local recurrence.

Practical consensus recommendations for tumor margins and breast conservative surgery

My suggestion: There is no difference in survival of breast cancer patients treated with either mastectomy or with breast conservation therapy combined with external beam radiotherapy. A positive margin (s) is an important factor contributing to the increased risk of local recurrence. However, in published literature, there is a lack of consensus on the definition of acceptable margin (s). As a result decision process about need for re-excision after positive margins remains uncrear.

Intraoperative ultrasound-guided lumpectomy versus wire-guided excision for nonpalpable breast cancer

Objective

This study was designed to compare the margin clearance and re-excision rates of ultrasound (US)- and wire-guided excision in a large number of patients with nonpalpable breast cancer.

Methods

In total, 520 women who were histologically diagnosed with nonpalpable breast cancer were recruited in this study. All nonpalpable lesions were visible by US. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: those who underwent wire-guided breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and those who underwent US-guided BCS. Re-excision rates and positive surgical margins were recorded.

Results

A total of 262 patients underwent US-guided excision and 258 patients underwent wire-guided excision. No differences were found in tumor or patient characteristics. The positive margin rate was 4.6% in the US-guided group and 19.4% in the wire-guided group with a significant difference. Age, menopausal status, excision volume, histological grade, and tumor type significantly influenced the positive surgical margin rate. The intraoperative re-excision rate was significantly lower in the US-guided group than wire-guided group (11.1% vs. 24.0%, respectively).

Conclusions

US-guided BCS seems to be more effective than wire-guided BCS for treatment of nonpalpable breast cancers in terms of the margin clearance and re-excision rates. Patients can avoid the discomfort caused by preoperative wire placement.

Impact of systematic cavity shave margins in breast-conserving surgery at a large community hospital with a low baseline re-excision rate

Systematic cavity shave margins (CSM) can decrease rate of positive margins and re-excision beyond that of selective CSM. The objective of this study was to determine whether systematic CSM decreased re-excision rate in a population with a low baseline re-excision rate. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) from November 2013 to November 2017. Primary end points were re-excision rate and margin status. Secondary end points were total volume of tissue excised, operative time, and concordance of core needle biopsy (CNB) pathology with final surgical pathology. The re-excision rates were 14.29% in the no shave margin group; 15.38% in the selective CSM; and 14.59% in the systematic CSM (P = .985). Odds of re-excision with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 5.04 times greater than with invasive cancer (INV) and 1.94 times higher than with INV and DCIS. There was no significant difference in positive margins between groups (P = .362). Mean specimen volume was lowest in the systematic CSM group (64.6 cm³ ), compared to no CSM and selective CSM (94.6 cm³ and 91.8 cm³ , respectively). With inclusion of shave margin volumes, total volume removed was not significantly different between no shave margin group (94.6 cm³ ) and systematic CSM (89.7 cm³ ) (P = .949). For patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) alone on their initial biopsy pathology, 69% were discovered to also have DCIS upon final pathology. Re-excision rate and specimen volume between all groups were not statistically different. There was a higher re-excision rate when DCIS was present, especially when not identified on CNB. As systematic CSM is most impactful when DCIS is involved, it is important to establish its presence for proper surgical planning.

Does Gross Margin Examination Reduce Re-excision Rate in Breast Conservation for Invasive Carcinoma? CALLER Review

Objective

Determine if Gross Margin Examination reduces margin re-excision rate. Our institutional practice is to perform Gross Margin Examination (GME) with Real-time re-excision (RRE) for all breast conservation specimens with Invasive Carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

Chart review was done to determine if this practice is helpful. 51 CALLER charts were reviewed from December 2016 to December 2017.

Results

Thirty-three underwent margin RRE based on the GME. 11 had cancer in the re-resected margin, 6 of which were cleared with the RRE. The other 5 were reoperated on to clear the margin because on final pathology a margin other than the re-resected margin was positive for malignancy. GME was helpful in preventing reoperation in 55%. None of the remaining 22 patients receiving were found to have a positive margin on final pathology, with 1.6 margins on average re-resected. 13/18 patients did not have RRE and had a final clear margin, but of the other 5, final margin was positive for DCIS in 2 and Invasive Cancer in 3. GME missed invasive disease at the margin in 3 of these 18 patients.

Conclusion

GME was helpful in preventing reoperation in 6 of 11 patients who would have had a positive margin. However, this resulted in the unnecessary removal of additional normal breast tissue in 22 patients. 3 patients' positive margins were missed with GME and required reoperation. 13 patients were able to avoid re-excision and 11 were able to clear their margin in real-time, improving outcomes 24/51 patients. GME therefore does appear useful.

Wide resection of soft tissue sarcomas after unplanned primary procedures: A long-term follow-up study

Unplanned resection of soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) predispose the patients to recurrences and metastases, secondary wide resection is usually warranted.To investigate the outcomes of re-excision of STS after unplanned initial resection.The records of 39 patients undergoing re-excision of STS after unplanned initial resection from January 2006 through December 2015 were retrospectively investigated.There were 17 males and 22 females, the mean age was 45.7 years. Most initial unplanned resections were performed in rural hospitals by surgeons from general surgery department, dermatology department, plastic surgery department, and orthopedic department. Thirty-five patients underwent secondary wide resections in our department. Histopathological findings indicated positive margins after primary surgeries in 18 patients. Until the conclusion of 37.2-month follow-up, 7 patients developed metastasis, 3 had local recurrence, and 7 were dead. Positive margins were associated with increased metastases and lower survival rates (P < .05). There was no significant difference in recurrences between the 2 groups.Unplanned initial resection of STS often lead to unfavorable prognosis. Primary wide resections are warranted for this disease entity.

Surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: A large retrospective study from a single institution

BACKGROUND

Management of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has various approaches with distinct institutional specific practice. Here, we review DCIS management in a single institution with emphasize on re-operation rates and outcome.

METHODS

Breast ductal carcinoma in situ cases diagnosed at the Nottingham Breast Institute between 1987 and 2017 were identified (n = 1249). Clinicopathological data were collected. Cases were histologically reviewed, and different factors associated with primary operation selection, re-excision, presence of residual tumor in the re-excision specimens, use of radiotherapy and ipsilateral recurrences were analyzed.

RESULTS

34% of DCIS patients were initially treated by mastectomy and were more frequently symptomatic, of high nuclear tumor grade, size >40 mm, and associated with comedo necrosis and Paget's disease of the nipple. Further surgery was due to involved or narrow surgical margins. Residual tumor tissue was detected in 53% of the re-excision specimens. Re-excision rates of patients treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were reduced from approximately 70% to 23%, and the final mastectomy rates decreased from 60% to 20%. Changes in surgical practice with acceptance of smaller excision margins and more frequent use of local radiotherapy have led to a significant decrease not only in the re-excision rate but also in the final mastectomy rate together with non-significant reduction in 5- and 10-year local recurrence rates.

CONCLUSION

Although BCS is increasingly the preferred primary surgical option for DCIS management, a proportion of low-risk DCIS patients continue to undergo re-excision surgery or completion mastectomy. Despite acceptance of smaller margins, recurrence rate is decreasing.

The Payer and Patient Cost Burden of Open Breast Conserving Procedures Following Percutaneous Breast Biopsy

OBJECTIVES

Percutaneous core-needle biopsy (PCNB) is the standard of care to biopsy and diagnose suspicious breast lesions. Dependent on histology, many patients require additional open procedures for definitive diagnosis and excision. This study estimated the payer and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and complication risk, among those requiring at least 1 open procedure following PCNB.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the Truven Commercial database (2009-2014). Women who underwent PCNB, with continuous insurance, and no history of cancer, chemotherapy, radiation, or breast surgery in the prior year were included. Open procedures were defined as open biopsy or lumpectomy. Study follow-up ended at chemotherapy, radiation, mastectomy, or 90 days-whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

In total, 143 771 patients (mean age 48) met selection criteria; 85.1% underwent isolated PCNB, 12.4% one open procedure, and 2.5% re-excision. Incidence of complications was significantly lower among those with PCNB alone (9.2%) vs 1 open procedure (15.6%) or re-excision (25.3%, P < .001). Mean incremental commercial payments were US $13 190 greater among patients with 1 open procedure vs PCNB alone (US $17 125 vs US $3935, P < .001), and US $4767 greater with re-excision (US $21 892) relative to 1 procedure. Mean patient OOP cost was US $858 greater for 1 open procedure vs PCNB alone (US $1527 vs US $669), and US $247 greater for re-excision vs 1 procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

A meaningful proportion of patients underwent open procedure(s) following PCNB which was associated with increased complication risk and costs to both the payer and the patient. These results suggest a need for technologies to reduce the proportion of cases requiring open surgery and, in some cases, re-excision.

Factors influencing reoperation following breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

Reoperation rates after breast-conserving surgery are highly variable and the best techniques for optimizing margin clearance are being evaluated. The aim was to identify the reoperation rate at our centre and identify influential factors, including a change in guidelines on margin recommendations and the introduction of in-theatre specimen X-ray.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was undertaken to identify 562 patients who underwent breast conservation at The Royal Melbourne Hospital and Royal Women's Hospital between 2013 and 2015. All cases that underwent subsequent re-excision or total mastectomy were captured and factors influencing margin excision recorded.

RESULTS

Reoperation was undertaken in 19.5% of patients (110; 86 re-excisions and 24 total mastectomies). There was a reduction in reoperation rate from 25% to 17% (P = 0.01) with adoption of the margin guidelines in 2014, but no significant reduction with the introduction of in-theatre specimen X-ray in 2015 (21% versus 16%, P = 0.14). On multivariate analysis, factors that significantly influenced reoperation rates were the presence of multifocality on mammogram (odds ratio (OR): 5.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-16.7, P < 0.01); lesion size on mammogram (OR: 2.2 per 10 mm, 95% CI: 1.4-3.6, P < 0.01); smaller excision specimen weight (OR: 0.5 per 25 g of resection, 95% CI: 0.3-0.8, P < 0.01); and pure ductal carcinoma in situ on final pathology (OR: 5.9, 95% CI: 1.9-16.7, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Optimizing reoperation rates following breast-conserving surgery remains a surgical challenge, particularly in patients with in situ or multifocal disease. Adoption of international margin guidelines reduced reoperation rates at our centre; however, introduction of intraoperative specimen X-ray had no influence.

Novel techniques for intraoperative assessment of margin involvement

Breast conserving surgery (BCS) is now the standard of care for the majority of women with early stage breast cancer. There is a finite rate of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) for breast conserving therapy (BCT) with annual rates of less than 1% for specialist breast practices. There has been recent consensus on the definition of an adequate resection margin for both invasive and noninvasive breast cancer treated with BCS, although some variation in margin policy persists with definitions of 'no tumour at ink', 1 and 2 mm margin mandates. Despite the development of methods for intraoperative assessment of margins, up to 20% of patients require further surgery (cavity re-excision or completion mastectomy) to achieve clear surgical margins. In the past decade, several novel technologies for intraoperative margin assessment have been explored with the aim of reducing rates of re-operation and its attendant patient anxiety, inconvenience and additional cost. Ongoing studies are addressing the safety, feasibility and cost-effectiveness of these novel technologies relative to methods in routine clinical usage.

Enhancing patterns of breast cancer on preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and resection margin in breast conserving therapy

BACKGROUND

The association between enhancing patterns of preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and resection margins after BCS has not been studied in detail before.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the association between surgical outcomes and enhancing patterns observed on DCE-MRI.

METHODS

269 enhancing patterns on DCE-MRI scans were selected, and subdivided into the following groups: (1) a single mass-like enhancement, (2) a single non-mass-like enhancement (NME), (3) mass-like enhancing breast cancer with other mass-like enhancing lesions, and (4) mass-like enhancing breast cancer with additional NMEs. Associations between enhancing patterns on DCE-MRI and re-excision rate, size of specimen, and ratio of tumor/specimen were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

The conversion rate from breast conserving therapy (BCT) to mastectomy as a result of MRI findings was 13.4%, re-excision rate during BCT was 8.2% and excision rate of another suspicious lesion was 7.4%. The single NME group had the highest re-excision rate after BCT (22.2%) (p = 0.02). The ratio of tumor/specimen (p = 0.61) and mean specimen size (p = 0.38) were not influenced by enhancement patterns. The false positive rate and positive predictive values of using DCE-MRI for defining the extension of breast cancer was 22.2% and 71.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Enhancement patterns on DCE- MRI, especially NME, could increase re-excision rates.

The importance of surgical margins in breast cancer

Achieving negative margins with "no tumor on ink" is an appropriate goal in breast conserving therapy (BCT). Wider margins do not decrease recurrence rates, and re-excision in patients with microscopic positive margins is warranted. Several strategies exist to increase rates of negative margins, including techniques to improve tumor localization, intraoperative assessment of margins and oncoplastic techniques. Negative margins should be the goal of BCT, as this will improve both local control and long-term survival.

Survey of American and Canadian general surgeons' perceptions of margin status and practice patterns for breast conserving surgery

Although breast conservation surgery (BCS) is commonly performed, several aspects of the procedure remain controversial. We undertook a cross-sectional survey to compare Canadian (CDN) and American (AM) general surgeons' reported BCS practice patterns to better understand the cross-border differences in early-stage breast cancer surgery care. A modified Dillman Method survey was mailed to 1,447 AM and 1,443 CDN surgeons. Factors evaluated included preoperative assessment, margin definition, surgical techniques, and re-excision practices. The response rate was 26% and 51% for AM and CDN surgeons, respectively. There was variation in use of preoperative core biopsies. American surgeons required wider margins for invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, and more often recommend re-excision for invasive cancer with 1 and 2 mm margins (p < 0.05). There was also variability in surgical techniques used for intraoperative margin assessment. Wide variation in BCS practice was observed, with some of this variability related to surgeon country.

Margins in breast conservation: a clinician's perspective and what the literature tells us

The optimal margin in breast-conserving surgery is controversial, and re-excision is common. Pathologic margin assessment is not standardized, and tumor biology and the use of systemic therapy have a major impact on local control. A study-level meta-analysis found no difference in local recurrence for margin widths of 1, 2, and 5 mm, leading a multidisciplinary panel to recommend adoption of no ink on tumor as the standard definition of a negative margin.

Margin comments in dermatopathology reports on dysplastic nevi influence re-excision rates

BACKGROUND

Dermatopathology reports influence clinical management, but it is not clear to what extent comments on margin involvement of histopathologically dysplastic nevi (HDN) influence decisions about re-excision or complete excision.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine if standardized margin comments (MCs) on HDN influence re-excision rates.

METHODS

By reviewing medical records, we compared re-excision rates of HDN reported with (May 2011 to December 2012) and without (January 2007 to December 2010) standardized MCs, and surveyed clinicians to assess perceptions of the impact of MCs on their management of HDN.

RESULTS

Of 584 HDN, 302 had MCs and 282 did not. Re-excision was recommended or performed at a significantly higher rate for patients in the group without MCs (51.8%, 146 of 282) than in the MC group (39.4%, 119 of 302); P = .003 regardless of margin status. This difference was observed among HDN diagnosed as mildly and moderately dysplastic but not for severely dysplastic nevi. In all, 40% (16 of 40) of clinicians responded that they are more likely to biopsy pigmented lesions with a clinical margin of normal-appearing skin than they were before MCs were routinely included in dermatopathology reports.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-excision rates were significantly lower in patients who had HDN reported with standardized MCs. MCs may help reduce re-excision rates, with associated reduction in health care use, cost, and morbidity.

Re-excision Rates and Local Recurrence in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Breast Conserving Therapy

Background: Controversy continues over the impact of re-excision (RE) on local recurrence (LR) in patients with invasive breast cancer. Patients and Methods: We investigated factors which could effect RE rates in patients undergoing breast-conserving or oncoplastic surgery. Between 2000 and 2003, 489 patients with stage pT1-pT2 or pN0/1 tumors were evaluated. 74 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients were categorized into 3 groups: no RE (n = 25), RE during primary surgery (n = 28), and RE performed during secondary or even tertiary procedure (n = 21). All tumor slides were re-evaluated by a pathologist specializing in breast cancer. Results: Mean follow-up was 70 months with an overall LR rate of 4.1 %. Binary logistic regression revealed no tumor-specific risk factors for RE. There was no LR in the group of patients who did not have RE. There was one case of LR in the group of patients who had RE during primary surgery. Two cases of LR were observed in the group of patients who had two or more surgical procedures. Conclusion: New risk factors for increased RE rates were not observed, reflecting the inconsistent data on risk factors for RE. However, breast cancers should be excised in a single procedure and oncoplastic procedures should be considered.

Approaches to routine handling of basal cell carcinoma re-excision specimens: a survey of Australian histopathologists

AIMS

To investigate and assess variation in routine approaches to the handling of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) re-excision specimens by Australian histopathologists.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 440 Australian histopathologists requesting details of their routine approach to the handling of BCC re-excision specimens. Responses were collated and compared to demonstrate any variation in approach.

RESULTS

Responses received from 208 pathologists indicated that variation was present in most aspects of specimen handling, including cut-up, examination of the specimen and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation demonstrated in the routine handling of BCC re-excision specimens may have important academic and clinical implications. It is important for pathologists to communicate their specimen handling approach to the surgeon. Further study should be conducted to specifically compare the various specimen handling approaches that were identified in this study. The development of evidence-based guidelines for the routine handling of BCC re-excision specimens may be appropriate.

What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates

BACKGROUND

Re-excision is common in breast-conserving surgery (BCS), partly due to lack of consensus on margin definitions. A population-based surgeon sample was used to determine current attitudes toward margin width and identify characteristics associated with margin choice.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients treated from 2005 to 2007 were identified from Los Angeles and Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries. Pathology reports were used to identify their surgeons, who were surveyed (n = 418). Response rate was 74.6% (n = 312). Mean surgeon age was 51.9 years, 17.8% were female, and mean number of years in practice was 18.5.

RESULTS

Wide variation in margin selection was noted among surgeons, and did not differ for invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In a scenario of T1 invasive cancer, 11% of surgeons endorsed margins of tumor not touching ink (TNTI), 42% of 1-2 mm, 28% of > or =5 mm, and 19% >1 cm as precluding need for re-excision before radiotherapy. On multivariate analysis, having 50% or more of practice devoted to breast cancer independently predicted smaller margin choice (p = 0.03). For a patient with a 1.4-cm grade 2 estrogen receptor (ER)-positive DCIS without radiotherapy (RT) planned, 3% of surgeons chose TNTI, 12% 1-2 mm, 25% > or =5 mm, and 61% >1 cm as sufficient without re-excision. In the scenario of DCIS without RT, breast specialization independently predicted larger margin choice (p = 0.03). Gender and years in practice were not predictive of margin choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide variation in BCS margin definition exists. Variation is similar for invasive cancer and DCIS with RT, with more specialized surgeons choosing smaller margins. In DCIS without RT, more specialized surgeons favored larger margins. A standardized margin definition may significantly affect re-excision rates.